Tennessee Teenager: George Dickel 17

George Dickel has always been one of my favorite distilleries. The Diageo owned Tennessee Whiskey maker's No. 12 is a favorite of mine, and I'm a big fan of the private barrel 9 and 14 year olds that went to retailers so I was excited to hear that they were releasing a 17 year old, which is also the oldest Tennessee Whiskey that I know of.

According to Dickel, they recently found these old barrels, accidentally stumbling upon them in the warehouse. We totally believe that story, right? I mean, this is Diageo. They've got a whole series of whiskey, the Orphan Barrels, premised on barrels they just found or accidentally mixed up or whatever. This is what they do. It's pretty shocking how a company that regularly admits to its own incompetence in these matters can still be the largest spirits company in the world, but hey, I guess they just stumbled into that too.

In any case, the 17 year old Dickel is only available at the distillery visitor center in 375 ml bottles.

George Dickel 17, 43.5% ($75 for 375 ml).

The nose is fantastic with big bourbon notes and plenty of oak. There is a dryness to it along with some red wine notes. The palate is, I hate to use the term, smooth. It's got a creamy, buttery mouth feel with those characteristic Dickel mineral/plywood notes, but there is a diluted quality to it. The finish is sweet with floral notes and maple syrup.

This is distinctively Dickel and as a Dickel fan, I certainly like it, but I really wish it were higher proof. It's good, but it feels like it could have been great with less water. As it stands, it's not as good as some of the 9 and 14 year old retail picks I've tasted, and given the quality and great price of the standard No. 12, it's hard to recommend the 17 year old at $75 for a half bottle to anyone but the most fanatical Dickel fans.

Thanks to Ryan at Signde Drinks for acquiring the bottle (and also see his review of the Dickel 17).  

Accident Whiskey: a Stupid Genre

Diageo recently released its latest whiskey in the Orphan Barrel series, the Gifted Horse, in which a young corn whiskey and bourbon were "accidentally" mixed with some older bourbon. Wow! How lucky for the largest spirits company in the world that some corn whiskey (which usually sucks) was poured into a 17 year old bourbon...and now it's $50 a bottle.

Unfortunately, the "accident whiskey" seems on the way to becoming a genre of its own. First came Serendipity, a blend of Scotch in which someone poured young Glen Moray into old Ardbeg.  How...serendipitous. Then Wild Turkey introduced Forgiven, in which someone dumped rye into the bourbon.

Just like those old Reese's Peanut Butter Cup commercials in which someone eating a chocolate bar collides with someone eating a jar of peanut butter and makes a delicious discovery, the Accident Whiskey backstories are silly and seem implausible. (Who the hell walks around eating peanut butter right out of the jar?)  Then, the company bottles it and gives it a name like WTF Whiskey which emphasizes the accidental nature of its creation.

The prevalence of these Accident Whiskeys would lead one to believe that either these stories are marketing fluff or whiskey distilleries are run by total idiots who randomly dump barrels together. The whiskey companies can let me know into which category they fall.
 

Diageo $pecial Releases

One of the great things about being in a whiskey club is you can pool resources and taste things you would never be able to afford on your own. At the LA Whiskey Society, we benefit from that pooling (as well as some members' immense generosity) and are lucky enough to get to taste some great stuff. Recently, we tasted the latest line up of Diageo special releases. This is stupid expensive whisky from some of the most heralded distilleries in Scotland.

This is one of those reviews I debate about posting. On the one hand, these things are so expensive that it's sort of silly to review them, because no matter how good they are, I wouldn't recommend anyone buy them unless you just won the Powerball or something. On the other hand, I figure people might want to know how they taste (and to engage in therapeutic schadenfreude if they suck), so here they are, in order of my least favorite to my favorite of the bottles we tasted. (There are two bottles in the collection that we didn't get to, a 17 year old unpeated Caol Ila and a 12 year old Lagavulin). I've also included links to the LA Whiskey Society entry for each whisky so you can see how some of my colleagues rated them.

Dalwhinnie 25, distilled 1989, 48.8% abv ($400)

This one was pretty standard stuff with typical malt and vanilla notes and a slight touch of acid. It was good whisky, but it was very straight forward and not very interesting. Several people commented that it didn't taste much different from the 15 year old Dahlwinnie you can get at Trader Joe's for about an eighth of the price.

Dailuaine 34, distilled 1980, 50.9% ($650)

One of the more obscure distilleries that made it into the special releases, the Dailuaine 34 was light and fruity on the nose with a touch of peat. The palate opened with light peat and sweet notes. This was a nice, light, peaty malt but nothing particularly special.

Clynelish Select Reserve, 56.1% abv ($900)

This one has no age statement but is said to include whiskies at least 15 years old. It was very true to the Clynelish profile with creamy malt and sea water notes. An on-profile Clynelish is always good, but this one wasn't better than many much cheaper on-profile Clynelishes available from independent bottlers.

Pittyvaich 25, distilled 1989, 49.9% abv ($550)

The Pittyvaich Distillery operated for less than 20 years, and while I've had a few, I can't say I have a firm impression of the distillery. This one was probably the sleeper hit of the night. It had typical bourbon cask vanilla and malt notes but also a savory, mineral quality that gave it complexity and depth along with very slight floral notes. There's something great about the purity of a malt that is able to show complexity without peat or sherry, and this one definitely did it.

The Cally 40, distilled 1974, 53.3% abv ($1,350)

This is a 40 year old single grain whisky from the Caledonian Distillery in Edinburgh which closed in 1988. This was another sleeper hit as few people, myself included, ever seem to expect much from a Scotch single grain. On this one, a pure bourbon nose was matched at first sip with sweet bourbon caramel, turning spicy and then ending with a taste of honey (tasting much sweeter than wine). The late honey on the palate gave it an almost Canadian Whisky type of profile, but like the best Canadian Whisky ever. The finish was drier with spice and coconut. It was sweet and delicious and fun to drink.

Brora 37, distilled 1977, 50.4% abv ($2,300)

I'm a huge fan of the peated distillate that came out of the Brora Distillery in the late 1970s, and this one hits the mark. It's got that characteristic mixture of fuel like peat notes, grassy malt notes and ocean air, along with a touch of lemon rind late in the palate. It's perfectly balanced with no single element dominating. Back in the heady days of the late 2000s, this was really, really expensive, but not totally unreachable, especially with a group of friends going in together. Tasting a great Brora again brings a tear to my eye.

Port Ellen 32, distilled 1983, 53.9% ($4,000)

In the pantheon of closed distilleries, I usually prefer Brora to Port Ellen, but this 37 year old Port Ellen aged in a combination of European oak casks, including some sherry, is a near perfect specimen. The nose starts with a blast of peat followed by oak and a touch of sweet sherry which grows as you smell it. The palate also starts with peat, then reveals dry sherry which is remains present but never in an overwhelming way. There are dried pineapple notes and plenty of peat. The finish is an old fireplace, or maybe even the smell of just lit firecrackers after they explode (aka my neighborhood on the Fourth of July), along with an old, dry red wine. Everything about this is rich, thick and wonderful.


Well, I would love to have been able to tell you that these whiskies sucked, but that just wasn't the case. The Pittyvaich is definitely the best bang for your buck, but it's still a really big buck and more than I would ever pay. Sadly, except for that Pittyvaich, the "cheaper" whiskies were the more disappointing ones.

Prices aside, Diageo has always done a pretty good job with these special releases. They know they have some great whisky on their hands, and they are going to make sure anyone who wants it pays dearly for the privilege.

Whiskey Revival: IW Harper 15 year old

Diageo recently revived the old IW Harper label which had disappeared from domestic shelves early this century. The new Harper comes in no age statement and 15 year old expressions, the latter of which was distilled at the new Bernheim distillery which sits on the site of the old Bernheim Distillery where Harper was previously made.

I happen to have an unopened mini bottle of the previous iteration of IW Harper that was bottled for the Bourbon Heritage Collection, so I thought I would take this opportunity to compare the two head to head.

IW Harper 15 year old (New), 43% abv ($75)

The nose has a very nice balance of caramel and rye spice. The palate starts sweet but very quickly turns spicy with rye notes which trail off into the finish.  This is surprisingly spicy given that it is apparently only 6% rye. It may be that some of those spicy notes come from the oak. In any case, it's quite pleasant and sippable.

IW Harper Gold Medal 15 year old (Old), 40% abv.

The nose is medicinal with some raw grain notes. The palate is also quite grainy and that note, almost a new make sort of pure alcohol note, dominates the finish.  I remembered this as being pretty bad, and it still is.

Well, Diageo has managed to do something that's pretty rare these days; they have managed to make a whiskey that is better than it used to be. The new Harper 15 year old is far better than the previous iteration. Is it worth buying at $75? That seems expensive to me for what it is, but to be honest, pretty much everything on the market today seems expensive to me for what it is.

Thanks to John Burlowski for the sample of the new 15 year old.

 

Sort of Almost Stitzel-Weller: Blade and Bow 22 year old

Blade & Bow is a new series of bourbons released by Diageo under the label "Stitzel-Weller Distillery."  This is, of course, utter bullshit and merely an attempt to capitalize on the hype surrounding Pappy Van Winkle's Stitzel-Weller Distillery which a corporate ancestor of Diageo had the foresight to shut down back in 1992. (If you want to have fun, try to count the mentions of Stitzel-Weller on the Blade & Bow website).

The series includes a non age statement bourbon and a 22 year old, which I review today.  The NAS uses a solera method which Diageo claims includes some Stitzel-Weller bourbon. The 22 year old includes bourbons distilled at Buffalo Trace and the Bernheim Distillery but was "inspired by the passion and craftsmanship of the legendary Stitzel-Weller Distillery." The odd thing is that Buffalo Trace and Bernheim are no slouches when it comes to great bourbons, but I guess they just don't have the cache of Stitzel-Weller.


Blade & Bow 22 year old, 46% abv ($150)

The nose is rich caramel and dry oak; it smells like a lovely, old wheater, much like some of the aged wheaters from Bernheim that were bottled by Willett (though I should note that Diageo has not stated whether this is composed of any wheated bourbons). On the palate, it's very dry and oaky with some acidic notes, and then it just fades away.  You get a quick taste of those old wheaters, but with none of the complexity or strength.  On the finish, there is lots of dusty bourbon with more great caramel and oak.

This has the nose and finish of a great bourbon, but the palate is just average. My guess is this may have been great at cask strength, but they added too much water. Old whiskeys, especially old wheaters (and this definitely tastes like it has some wheated bourbon components), can be very temperamental with water. Too much water breaks up the complexity and dulls the long-slumbering subtleties while giving emphasis to bitter and/or acidic notes. As it is, it's fine bourbon, but the best thing about it is that it hints at some of the great old ones.

Thanks to John Burlowski for the sample.
 

More Orphan Barrels: Rhetoric and Forged Oak

It's time to try two more of Diageo's Orphan Barrel bourbons.  Rhetoric was the third release in the series and Forged Oak is the most recent.  Both were distilled at the Bernheim Distillery.  The Bernheim Distillery, of course, was entirely rebuilt in 1992.  Presumably these come mostly from the new Bernheim distillery, which is currently owned by Heaven Hill, but there could be older barrels mixed in as well.

Rhetoric, 20 yo, 45% abv ($85)

The nose has a nice, dry, oaky note with a touch of lemon rind. The palate has caramel and oak then moving into red wine notes; it's a  bit diluted tasting. It has a nice milk chocolate finish.  Overall, this one was less interesting than the first two releases, though still decent.  That being said, I'd never pay $85 for a bottle.  

Forged Oak, 15 yo, 45.25% abv ($65)

The nose is a bit astringent on the opening. With a little air, it gets honey and black pepper.  The palate is pancake syrup (not real maple syrup, the fake stuff).  It's thin without much substance.  On the finish it turns a bit spicy. While Rhetoric was was a bit less interesting than Old Blowhard and Barterhouse, Forged Oak is a solid step down from those earlier releases.  It's sweet and flat and that's about it.

The first two bottles from this series made me think critics had been a bit too harsh, but these two were unremarkable.

Thanks to John Burlowski for the samples.  

More Orphans: Old Blowhard Bourbon

Having liked the Barterhouse 20 year old bourbon from Diageo's Orphan Barrel series, I thought I would try the original release.  Old Blowhard is a 26 year old bourbon distilled at the old Bernheim distillery. I don't see as many of these on the shelf these days as the Barterhouse, but there may still be some out there.

Old Blowhard, 26 yo, 45.35% abv ($150)

This has a great nose of ancient, oaky bourbon. The palate comes on with sweet caramel and then transitions into intense oak with a touch of acid.  The finish is dry and ashy like an old Zinfandel with a touch of bitterness.

Of all the Diageo Orphan Barrels, this initial release probably has the worst reputation. Again, I was surprised how un-terrible it was.  It's not great by any means, but it's perfectly decent and I'd happily drink a glass or two anytime.

That being said, I wouldn't pay $150 for a bottle, but to be fair, it is 26 years old.  Age always adds price and it's not as if there are tons of comparable 26 year old bourbons going for much cheaper.  Going head to head with the Barterhouse, though, the Barterhouse is the winner in both taste and price.  

Diageo's Orphan Barrel: Barterhouse 20

I've steered clear of Diageo's Orphan Barrel series since it didn't hold much appeal for me, but I recently sampled the second Orphan release, the 20 year old Barterhouse.  This release is so limited that I saw it for sale at my local Walgreen's for $64.

Barterhouse comes from the Bernheim Distillery which means it was likely bourbon that was intended for IW Harper or Old Charter (See my older posts for more information on the Old Bernheim and New Bernheim Distilleries).


Barterhouse, 20 year old, 45.1% abv ($64)

The nose on this is delightful with lots of oak and wood polish.  The palate is minerally, woody and very, very dry.  It's a bit flat toward the end.  The finish has big mineral notes.

The Orphan Barrel releases have been criticized for both cynical marketing and subpar, over oaked whiskey, but I liked this one. It's unusually dry and oaky, but I thought that made it interesting.  Certainly, though, if you like your bourbon sweet, this one isn't for you. Hmm, maybe I'll go back and try some of those other orphans.

The Walking Blend: Assorted Johnnie Walker

It's been a long time since I tried any Johnnie Walker whiskies; the last one I reviewed was the King George V three years ago, so I figure it's about time for some new Walker.  I've always considered JW to be sort of zombie whiskies.  They look and smell like whisky, but they are devoid of any soul.  Let's see if any of these blends survived the zombie apocalypse.


Johnnie Walker Swing, 40% ($75)

JW's Swing comes in a wobbly bottle.  That appears to be the most significant information about it. The nose is nice and malty. The palate is very light with malt notes and just a touch of spice, trailing off with some pepper in the finish.  It is completely inoffensive but not at all interesting, although, did I mention the wobbly bottle?   


Johnnie Walker Platinum, 18 yo., 40% abv ($115)

JW Platinum joined the rainbow in 2013, shortly before the 18 year old JW Gold was discontinued. New color, same age, but double the price.  Sounds Diageolicious!  This has a nice nose with malt, sea air, green grapes and some floral notes.  The palate is malty with some musty notes, like drinking in a damp cellar.  The finish is dry with notes of autumn leaves.  This is decent stuff, but nothing I'd pay three figures for.


The Explorers' Club Series

This is a series of blends released in 2012 for the duty free market.  Last summer, a New York court enjoined Diageo from using the name after the New York Explorers Club filed suit; the parties settled in September so these whiskies will remain available.

All three of the Explorers' club whiskies are no age statement, 40% abv, come in liter bottles and include a stupid story about how they were specially blended to represent the part of the world alluded to in the name...whatever.

The Spice Road ($40)

The nose is soapy and grainy.  The palate is very grain forward, with light grain notes, sort of like an Irish blend. The finish is a bit medicinal.  This one is pretty blah.

The Gold Route ($125)

The nose on this one has more in the way of coastal notes with a slight whiff of peat.  The palate is malty with some seaweed and very slight peat and mineral notes that follow into the finish.  This one is decent and at least has some interesting stuff going on, though so does JW Black and it's a lot cheaper.

The Royal Route ($195)

The final and highest priced member of the Explorers' Club, The Royal Route has some decent peat on the nose along with some wine notes. The palate opens with the peat but then turns malty/soapy and diluted, leaving only a trace of peat on the finish along with a lot of soapiness and a bit of bitterness.

Wow, the Explorers' Club was a big yawn.  The Gold Route was clearly the strongest of the three.  The Royal Route starts strong but then goes steadily downhill.

All of today's JW whiskies are pretty much in line with my opinion of Johnnie Walker products.  None are offensive, some are decent, most are boring and all are overpriced.

All in all, it's still soulless zombie whisky.  If you see a bottle, don't open: dead inside.

Thanks to Tyler Patton for the samples.

Tempest in a Tennessee Teapot

There have been a lot of pixels spilled in the whiskey blogosphere lately about a new bill in Tennessee to amend the definition of Tennessee Whiskey.  Most commentators have portrayed this as a cynical move by Diageo, owner of George Dickel, to undermine their big competitor Brown Forman, owner of Jack Daniel's.  There are a lot of accusations flying on both sides, so I thought some background might be helpful.

Before May of last year, there was no legal definition of Tennessee Whiskey.  None.  While Dickel and Daniel's both made a spirit that complied with the federal definition of bourbon, there was nothing stopping anyone from marketing any other whiskey as Tennessee Whiskey.

What was it that necessitated a new law last year?  Some speculated that it was the craft distillery movement and Popcorn Sutton in particular.  Popcorn Sutton was a legendary Tennessee moonshiner, and the his namesake brand was making an unaged whiskey and marketing it as Popcorn Sutton's Tennessee White Whiskey.  This may not have sat well with Brown Forman, who moved the bill to create a definition of Tennessee Whiskey based on how Jack Daniel's (and George Dickel) made it.

That law's definition mirrored the federal definition of bourbon except that the whiskey (1) had to be filtered through maple charcoal prior to aging; and (2) had to be manufactured and aged in Tennessee.  When the law came up last year, Prichard's, a Tennessee craft distiller that does not use the Lincoln County process of sugar maple charcoal filtering, objected.  As a result, a special clause was added to the bill exempting any distillery that was licensed in the year 2000, a very narrow bracket that included only Prichard's.

Now, Diageo has proposed an amendment to the law which makes several key changes, eliminating the requirements that Tennessee Whiskey must be:  (1) aged in new barrels; (2) aged in Tennessee; and (3) filtered through maple charcoal, replacing that provision with a requirement that it be filtered through charcoal (i.e. not necessarilly maple charcoal). It also includes an exception for any whiskey that includes words between "Tennessee" and "Whiskey."  This would make it clear that "Tennessee White Whiskey" is a permissible usage, but that merely codifies the interpretation given by the Tennessee ABC, which advised last year that it would allow the terms Tennessee White Whiskey, Tennessee Corn Whiskey and Tennessee Unaged Whiskey to be used without complying with the law's requirements for "Tennessee Whiskey."

It appears that the amendment hadn't even been formally introduced when Brown Forman fired the first shot, accusing Diageo of trying to weaken the standards of Tennessee Whiskey. Diageo responded saying that they were trying to maintain flexibility.  Both Chuck Cowdery and Mark Gillespie of WhiskyCast have covered the back and forth extensively.

For my part, I think this is a much smaller deal than it's being made out to be.  People have been quick to beat up on Diageo, and that's always fun, but I'm not sure I buy it.  Chuck Cowdery opines that permitting aging in used barrels is an attempt by Diageo to weaken Jack Daniel's not because of Dickel but because Daniel's is challenging Diageo's flagship brand, Johnnie Walker.

The problem with this theory is that allowing some producers to reuse barrels doesn't hurt Daniel's at all. The amendment doesn't require Daniel's to age in reused barrels so nothing they do would have to change.  And I don't see how other Tennessee Whiskeys aging in used barrels hurts Daniel's.  Let's face it.  For most of the world, Jack Daniel's is Tennessee Whiskey (and probably bourbon too).  They don't know or care how it's made.  No change in what the other, comparatively tiny brands do is going to hurt Daniel's or its giant slice of market share.

Second, as noted above, this law has been in place for less than a year. A year ago, nothing was stopping anyone from aging Tennessee Whiskey in used barrels, and no one seemed to think the sky was falling the way Brown Forman seems to think it is now.  If this truly is an attack on Jack Daniel's, it's a weak and ham handed one.

Curiously, everyone is talking about used barrels, and almost no one is talking about the fact that this bill eliminates the requirement that Tennessee Whiskey use the Lincoln County Process, the thing that has been the single defining feature of Tennessee Whiskey.  The new law substitutes "charcoal" filtering for "maple charcoal filtering."  That's a small change with a big impact.  Maple charcoal filtering is the Lincoln County Process traditionally used for Tennessee Whiskey.  Charcoal filtering would include that but presumably would also include filtering through activated charcoal (think Brita), which is the chill filtering process used by many bourbons.  From the perspective of the integrity of Tennessee Whiskey, I would be more worried about the elimination of the Lincoln County Process requirement than the used barrels.

While Diageo may be facing a barrel shortage that would make it beneficial to age in used casks, the real benefit for them could be aging whiskey out of state.  On WhiskyCast, Brown Forman's spokesman noted that Diageo has been shifting some aging to the Stitzel-Weller site in Kentucky.  Perhaps Diageo would like to shift some of its Dickel barrels to Kentucky and just threw in the used barrel and other provisions to try and secure allies among the craft distillers.

The other reason that this strikes me as silly on everyone's part is that none of this impacts what whiskey can be made, just what it can be called.  Nothing is stopping Dickel from aging whiskey in used barrels or aging the whiskey out of state; they just couldn't call it "Tennessee Whiskey."  Would anyone really notice if Dickel changed their label to say "Whisky Distilled in Tennessee" or something similar?

To summarize, Diageo's amendment is unnecessary and Brown Forman's reaction is overblown.  Add to that the fact that it is very unlikely that a whiskey bill can pass the Tennessee legislature without Brown Forman's support, and I'd say this is the archetypal tempest in a teapot.

Sku Awards: Worst Whiskey Company

'Tis the season for whiskey awards, and like every blogger, I want to make sure I get mine in.  This year, there was stiff competition for our Worst Whiskey Company award with lots of cynical marketing ploys, ridiculous pricing and other shenanigans, but there can only be one winner!

First, the runners up:

• Jim Beam.  Year after year, Beam is contender for this award. This year, they put in a solid effort with their attempt to charge their loyal customers more for less by cutting the proof of Maker's Mark.  Only in the face of a huge public backlash did they relent, but hey, it's not their fault that there isn't enough whiskey around; they've got to meet the insatiable demand for Red Stag.
• Diageo.  Another major heavyweight in this category, Diageo was clearly playing to win this year.  I won't go into detail here; just read Whisky Advocate's recent post naming them Distiller of the Year.  That post pretty much summarizes all of the reasons why they should get the Worst Whiskey Company award (and thanks to Whisky Advocate for saving me the effort!)
• Dewar's (Bacardi Inc.).  A good rule of thumb for companies is not to alienate half the planet, but Dewar's managed to do just that with an ill advised commercial about their character "the Baron."  Aside from being a boring imitation of the advertising personalities for Captain Morgan and Dos Equis' Most Interesting Man in the World, the Baron's heroics involved rescuing a friend from being approached by an overweight woman in a bar (apparently, Dewar's commercials operate in a bizarro-opposite world in which men in bars are in constant danger of getting approached by women they find undesirable).  The blogosphere immediately pounced, and Dewar's ended up withdrawing the ad.  They may have even used the same form apology that Maker's Mark used.

Congratulations to all the runners up, but there is only room in the world for one Worst Whiskey Company, and this year the award goes to:

Michter's (Chatam Imports).  Michter's has long been a Worst Whiskey Company contender both for their mediocre whiskeys and constant stomping on the grave of the true Michter's Distillery in Pennsylvania, which they have nothing to do with.  This year, though, they were not satisfied to rest on their laurels.  No, this year they rose from the ranks of whiskey mediocrity to pure evil with the release of Michter's Celebration.

Before Celebration, no one thought it would be possible to charge $4,000 for a bottle of American Whiskey.  Just doing that would have put Michter's in the running for this award, but they didn't stop there.  They went above and beyond in their effort to insult the intelligence of consumers.  This $4k marvel isn't a bourbon or a rye; it's a "sour mash whiskey," a classification which means...nothing.  It has no age statement, and it's not even labeled straight.  In short, this crap could be anything.  Though media reports mention that it contains whiskey up to 30 years old, it could contain whiskey that is much younger. It could be any type of whiskey.  It could even have added coloring.  And as with all Michter's whiskey, we have no idea what distillery or distilleries made the whiskey. We don't know anything. 

Of course, as the old saw goes, none of that matters if it tastes great, except that no one is going to taste it.  They only produced 273 bottles of this whiskey.  Based on my own observations, I would estimate that only 99.9% appear to remain on the shelf.  Given that and the fact that there appear to be no reviews on-line, perhaps we can take heart in the fact that whiskey consumers aren't as gullible as Michter's may think (they should have put a picture of Pappy on the bottle - then it would have been gold!).

So for shameless cynicism and chutzpah which knows no bounds, I'm honored to declare Michter's the Worst Whiskey Company of 2013!  (Note to Michter's, feel free to list this honor on your website in place of your current headline "Wine Enthusiast Distiller of the Year" since, you know, you're not actually a distiller).

Congratulations to Michter's and better luck next year to all of our other competitors.  Oh, and if I left anyone out who deserves a mention, just let me know in the comments.